Here is a video of Nastase-Smith. Stan hits very few groundies (mostly serve and volley) and in the few that I counted in the first 11 minutes before I lost patience, his finish was either across the body or at least up near the left of the forehead.

Same with Nasty. Nasty even goes so far as to swing across the body on service returns!

Old school E forehand was followtru towards the TARGET, not straight ahead. Those old WilsonSS Medium 43/4's were easy 14 oz, hard to stop.
Nasty uses pure conti forehand grips, lots of wrist, and the rackethead has to followthru across his body. YOU try hitting conti topspin forehands. I know, because not only did I play conti forehand in the '70's, but my current right handed forehand is conti topspin.

Old school E forehand was followtru towards the TARGET, not straight ahead. Those old WilsonSS Medium 43/4's were easy 14 oz, hard to stop.
Nasty uses pure conti forehand grips, lots of wrist, and the rackethead has to followthru across his body. YOU try hitting conti topspin forehands. I know, because not only did I play conti forehand in the '70's, but my current right handed forehand is conti topspin.

Click to expand...

Hopefully that is what Stan meant - follow through towards target, not straight forward.

But I saw him following through across the body, and that too with an open stance, in one shot. As you also noticed, Nasty was also following through across his body.

Those are GUYS hitting pro level shots. They cannot stop their 14+ oz rackets once they get them going, nor should they bother to.
Chrissie played with a lighter racket, a much more controlled swing, and also followed thru past the target most of the time.
The notion of following thru towards your target was to get duffer players to extend thru their shots, instead of stopping the swing at impact, like duffer's sometimes do.
In the old daze, the prevailing thought was if you followthru'ed wrapped around your body, you would not have time to recover towards center of intersect for the reply shot.
Now with TOPSPIN, the ball goes slower, you have more time to recover, and nobody is standing at net to volley away your passing shot.

Those are GUYS hitting pro level shots. They cannot stop their 14+ oz rackets once they get them going, nor should they bother to.
Chrissie played with a lighter racket, a much more controlled swing, and also followed thru past the target most of the time.

Here is a video of Nastase-Smith. Stan hits very few groundies (mostly serve and volley) and in the few that I counted in the first 11 minutes before I lost patience, his finish was either across the body or at least up near the left of the forehead.

Same with Nasty. Nasty even goes so far as to swing across the body on service returns!

Click to expand...

So now where have we heard all this ?? Seems like a fellow named Oscar tried
to share with you how the Pros hit one way, but often spoke of it quite different
than what they actually did in matches. This was one of the big motivations to
write his books...to point this out like you just did.

Those are GUYS hitting pro level shots. They cannot stop their 14+ oz rackets once they get them going, nor should they bother to.
Chrissie played with a lighter racket, a much more controlled swing, and also followed thru past the target most of the time.
The notion of following thru towards your target was to get duffer players to extend thru their shots, instead of stopping the swing at impact, like duffer's sometimes do.
In the old daze, the prevailing thought was if you followthru'ed wrapped around your body, you would not have time to recover towards center of intersect for the reply shot.
Now with TOPSPIN, the ball goes slower, you have more time to recover, and nobody is standing at net to volley away your passing shot.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure she played with a Wilson pro staff midsize at one point which is a very heavy traditional frame. She also played with traditional wood rackets in the wood racket era.

Stan does a good job of course, but few things to notice,
I'm not a grip zealot, but is it a sw grip? Many say Eastern.
Someone got the pics out of sequence right? for a reason?

Where he says "Federer is turning his shoulders as he’s moving to the ball.
Notice how his left hand is on the racquet even though he’s well into his preparation.
This forces him to turn his shoulders" This is not just exactly right.
The shoulders have NOT really turned from the body, or done much prep by coiling.
At that point he is really still just running to intercept the ball with everything pointing
the way he is running except his face as it watches the ball come in. His feet, hips,
shoulders are all facing the direction he is running, with the racket still in both hands,
in front of his chest/body/shoulders,(I call stalking) very much like in the ready position.
It's a instant later where he gets some shoulder turn to load and coil his core
for the shot.

Click to expand...

I Think the pictures are out of sequence because tennis magazine has changed their website, and it is an older article. I don't know I'm not a computer expert.

The only reason I posted the Stan Smith article is because he discusses Federer's modern takeback vs more old school players. I'm really not interested in getting into another MTM debate. All I will say on that matter, is if someone told me to stalk the ball, I would have no idea how they wanted me to prepare, coil, turn etc. In my view it's best to describe what is going on with more concrete language. MTM has as much connection to "modern tennis" as "Scientology" does to science.

There's really no point in these forums if someone can't discuss something simple like preparation, coiling, unit turn, takeback whatever you want to call it, without the MTM police showing up. Ok it's not preparation. It can only be called stalking, whatever that means.

"Modern" players generally take the racket head back higher than players in previous eras. That's what creates the loop backswing. It's something that's readily apparent if you watch much tennis or play at all. Good players in all eras prepare early. It's blatantly obvious if you watch or play tennis. I thought issues like these were germane to the original topic of the thread.I guess I'm not allowed to talk about any of this in a concrete fashion. I can't talk about preparation on groundstrokes. No preparation happens, only stalking. It's impossible to have a productive discussion in here about even the most basic aspects of the game.

I Think the pictures are out of sequence because tennis magazine has changed their website, and it is an older article. I don't know I'm not a computer expert.

The only reason I posted the Stan Smith article is because he discusses Federer's modern takeback vs more old school players. I'm really not interested in getting into another MTM debate. All I will say on that matter, is if someone told me to stalk the ball, I would have no idea how they wanted me to prepare, coil, turn etc. In my view it's best to describe what is going on with more concrete language. MTM has as much connection to "modern tennis" as "Scientology" does to science.

There's really no point in these forums if someone can't discuss something simple like preparation, coiling, unit turn, takeback whatever you want to call it, without the MTM police showing up. Ok it's not preparation. It can only be called stalking, whatever that means.

"Modern" players generally take the racket head back higher than players in previous eras. That's what creates the loop backswing. It's something that's readily apparent if you watch much tennis or play at all. Good players in all eras prepare early. It's blatantly obvious if you watch or play tennis. I thought issues like these were germane to the original topic of the thread.I guess I'm not allowed to talk about any of this in a concrete fashion. I can't talk about preparation on groundstrokes. No preparation happens, only stalking. It's impossible to have a productive discussion in here about even the most basic aspects of the game.

Click to expand...

There is also besides the height of the take back something else. The modern guys wait a split second longer to initiate the loop. To preserve the continuous loop. From unit turn to contact. Older era might wait with the racket behind them more often. I'm not even sure if the term unit turn is appropriate for the older era closed stance fhs.

So now where have we heard all this ?? Seems like a fellow named Oscar tried
to share with you how the Pros hit one way, but often spoke of it quite different
than what they actually did in matches. This was one of the big motivations to
write his books...to point this out like you just did.

Click to expand...

So then why are you quoting him in support of whatever if that did not really happen?

"Modern" players generally take the racket head back higher than players in previous eras. That's what creates the loop backswing. .

Click to expand...

The problem is you start with a couple of false premises.
First, a higher tk back just makes a bigger loop and has little to do with
making a loop; just affects the size of it. Lower tk back makes a nice smaller
loop. Actually there is a certain modern move towards being more compact &
making loops smaller currently.
Second, you never show an connection between your high tk back and making
a bigger loop to the OP's idea of "loop vs early". Only relation seems to be that
your bigger loop will take more time and require earlier prep, but you never even
mention it that I saw. Seems you just want to talk about big loops and saw loops in
a topic along with a chance to insult other instructional approaches that actually
address the issues of the op

A higher takeback is more suitable for today's high bouncing surfaces because it is easier to bring it down below the level of the ball compared to starting low and then meeting it up. I have seen this explained in some video which I don't have a link to. But it also depends on the player.

So then why are you quoting him in support of whatever if that did not really happen?

Click to expand...

One of your better questions!
I did it because I knew this is where we would end up and
you would either say what you did, YOU confirming what we have been told on this issue,
or possibly you miss that point, blinded by the usual claimed trust of any big name
like Smith, and we could just deal with the good point Stan make about what is
happening in Fed's game today, with the wt of Stan on the issue.
Either way you went with it, if forces you to deal with the misinfo in your posts.
This way, you had to deal with both of them

One of your better questions!
I did it because I knew this is where we would end up and
you would either say what you did, YOU confirming what we have been told on this issue,
or possibly you miss that point, blinded by the usual claimed trust of any big name
like Smith, and we could just deal with the good point Stan make about what is
happening in Fed's game today, with the wt of Stan on the issue.
Either way you went with it, if forces you to deal with the misinfo in your posts.
This way, you had to deal with both of them

Click to expand...

So you said somebody was right even though he was wrong because I would come back and point it out and you were waiting for it? Am I that important?

The problem is you start with a couple of false premises.
First, a higher tk back just makes a bigger loop and has little to do with
making a loop; just affects the size of it. Lower tk back makes a nice smaller
loop. Actually there is a certain modern move towards being more compact &
making loops smaller currently.
Second, you never show an connection between your high tk back and making
a bigger loop to the OP's idea of "loop vs early". Only relation seems to be that
your bigger loop will take more time and require earlier prep, but you never even
mention it that I saw. Seems you just want to talk about big loops and saw loops in
a topic along with a chance to insult other instructional approaches that actually
address the issues of the op

Click to expand...

You're right having a compact backswing is a good idea. In one of of my earlier posts in this thread I talked about the compact backswing. I am a big believer in having a compact backswing and a long followthrough. That is the way I was taught. It's frustrating because with you everything is black vs white traditional vs modern one thing vs the other.

Take any modern player you want. I will use wawrinka as an example. On his backhand side he has a higher takeback of his racket head than more old school players, he has an early takeback and he has a compact takeback, where he takes the racket back with a unit turn and without extraneous arm motion. It's all there. Most real life coaches are in agreement on these things.

It's frustrating because with you everything is black vs white traditional vs modern one thing vs the other.

Click to expand...

He can see everything only one way or the other, and also thinks others are the same way. The second is more frustrating, actually. He expects you to be like him and argue with him, when you really are not thinking in that fashion at all.

Either he is really like this, or he is acting in order to promote a commercial system, I can't tell for sure. No other coach on this board is like that, so it is quite surprising. One would think it is coaches who would have a much broader view than players.

He has now even started playing games like quoting someone to prove his point, then turning around and claiming that the person was wrong and the quote was put out there for someone to contradict it.

It's frustrating because with you everything is black vs white traditional vs modern one thing vs the other.

Click to expand...

No, if I saw things a clear black vs white as you say, I would make a statement
like you did,
"Modern" players generally take the racket head back higher than players in previous eras. That's what creates the loop backswing."

That is the kind of incorrect, partial understanding you and suresh deal in, that leads to
misunderstanding and confusion.

Now when it comes to classic tennis instructions, it tends to be a bit cut and dried
due to books and ref material that provides guidance. I realize you don't make use
of these items and like to wing it, giving your on ideas about classic, so your
confusion is not surprising. I would think you would catch on after while and
realize your personal views on classic hold little sway and don't hold up, despite
what you think someone told you one time or another.

He has now even started playing games like quoting someone to prove his point, then turning around and claiming that the person was wrong and the quote was put out there for someone to contradict it.

Click to expand...

I can see how that trap you walked right into stung, but telling lies about it won't
take you out of checkmate

You are the one who claimed Stan Smith was incorrect...not me, andyou are the one who puts so much weight in who played on tour and what
they say. I've seen very few who played on tour and could speak well on the
details of what they do. They mostly know how they think of it and what works
for them; rarely being good coaches themselves.

Sad how you have to try to link in with Frisfool since you are faring so poorly with
your own posts.

Read post 4 again.
Some players play right handed. Some left.
Some play the net. Other's stay back.
Some use 2hbh. Other's 1hbh.
Some leap off the ground to serve, while other's stay grounded.
Some where shorts, while other's wear long pants.
What works for you?

Read post 4 again.
Some players play right handed. Some left.
Some play the net. Other's stay back.
Some use 2hbh. Other's 1hbh.
Some leap off the ground to serve, while other's stay grounded.
Some where shorts, while other's wear long pants.
What works for you?

Click to expand...

There's a lot of truth in this. There's a lot of variation among pros, so we know there's many paths to excellence.

A continuous loop doesn't give you 'much more topspin'. What it gives you is a higher rhs. What you do with that rhs is up to you (pace or spin). The ball doesn't care if you did a loop or not. It cares how it was struck and how fast it was struck.

Now when it comes to classic tennis instructions, it tends to be a bit cut and dried
due to books and ref material that provides guidance. I realize you don't make use
of these items and like to wing it, giving your on ideas about classic, so your
confusion is not surprising. I would think you would catch on after while and
realize your personal views on classic hold little sway and don't hold up, despite
what you think someone told you one time or another.

Click to expand...

Is classic instruction the same thing as traditional instruction? Do you consider coaches who teach students the unit turn in preparation for groundstrokes to be offering traditional, classic, or modern advice? What are the differences between stalking and the unit turn?

In the old days, coaches had their students emulating players like Connors and Evert with lower takebacks. Today, coaches have their players emulating players like Federer, Murray, Tsonga, or any of the other top 100 players that use a higher takeback, and then lower the racket back down to the height of the ball or lower, creating a loop backswing. I figured this was a straight forward observation we could all agree on. I thought it might even appeal to your sensibilities since it contrasts older, you might even say "traditional" instruction with more "modern" instruction.

As far as i can tell your problem with my point is that I don't use the MTM approved term "stalking" to describe what is going on in the backswing. It also seems you have some kind of problem with the term "unit turn." Coaches in my area use this and other terminology all the time to describe how students should turn their shoulders and coil in preparation for their groundstroke. Do you have a problem with the term "unit turn", because a lot of good coaches are using it.

There is also besides the height of the take back something else. The modern guys wait a split second longer to initiate the loop. To preserve the continuous loop. From unit turn to contact. Older era might wait with the racket behind them more often. I'm not even sure if the term unit turn is appropriate for the older era closed stance fhs.

Click to expand...

Thanks this explains it really well. When I watch Wawrinkas backhand takeback I see him coil very early. Then he appears to stay coiled for a split second before he unloads. Same for forehands of all the top guys. I see them turn and coil very early, then they have their racket head high for a split second before it drops down and starts the "loop".

I think this debate always gets sidetracked by the difference between preparation and backswing. Prep is what the MTM'ers call "stalking", the unit turn with the racquet held in front of the chest area. Backswing is from this point where the hands split- from here there should really be no pause (assuming the hands have split high). For a player who has a straight back take back there will be a pause in the transition from back to forward.

I think this debate always gets sidetracked by the difference between preparation and backswing. Prep is what the MTM'ers call "stalking", the unit turn with the racquet held in front of the chest area. Backswing is from this point where the hands split- from here there should really be no pause (assuming the hands have split high). For a player who has a straight back take back there will be a pause in the transition from back to forward.

cheers

Click to expand...

So ash sums up whole argument in one sentence. Where is the fun in that ash? We will have one less thing to argue about..... go tackle the "across" thing in other threads now please.

I think this debate always gets sidetracked by the difference between preparation and backswing. Prep is what the MTM'ers call "stalking", the unit turn with the racquet held in front of the chest area. Backswing is from this point where the hands split- from here there should really be no pause (assuming the hands have split high). For a player who has a straight back take back there will be a pause in the transition from back to forward.

cheers

Click to expand...

Since unit turn can have only two directions (right or left), it can hardly be regarded as stalking. Stalking means constantly following your target, not being limited to one of two possibilities.

As far as watching the ball goes, there is no need for a new term for that - "watch the ball" or "keep your eyes on the ball" have been used for a long time.

Since unit turn can have only two directions (right or left), it can hardly be regarded as stalking. Stalking means constantly following your target, not being limited to one of two possibilities.

Click to expand...

Who is seeing things as black or white only now? lol

Unit turn is described in books as a full turn right from the start, and hands have
already split in traditional instruction, & more, whereas with stalking the turn is more
gradual, hands still on the racket and tracking the balls path with a timing mechanism.
Ash did a nice job with it overall.

Unit turn is described in books as a full turn right from the start, and hands have
already split in traditional instruction, & more, whereas with stalking the turn is more
gradual, hands still on the racket and tracking the balls path with a timing mechanism.
Ash did a nice job with it overall.

Click to expand...

That is not true. The separation of the hands often begins quite early after the turn is started, sometimes almost along with the turn - as soon as there is an intention to hit. There is no distinct stalking phase with 2 hands on the racket like you describe. Even when it is longer for some, the hands are coming off before the turn is fully complete.

That is not true. The separation of the hands often begins quite early after the turn is started, sometimes almost along with the turn - as soon as there is an intention to hit. There is no distinct stalking phase with 2 hands on the racket like you describe. Even when it is longer for some, the hands are coming off before the turn is fully complete.

Click to expand...

great post to illustrate what you don't understand.
But you think you know when there is an intention to hit and hands are separating
there? lol
I think they separate at intention to start a bk swing.
You list a bunch of vids with gals having the ball hit right to them and
think that shows anything? :???:
Of course you just turn when the ball is coming to your Fh, but they all
used 2 hands on the racket and did most of the turn with hands in front
of their chest...even in these very poor examples of the topic.
Not the immediate split of the hands shown in tennis books for a unit turn.
not even a good try this time.

None of these are even print references, much less the books on classic
instruction over the last few decades that I referenced.

great post to illustrate what you don't understand.
But you think you know when there is an intention to hit and hands are separating
there? lol
I think they separate at intention to start a bk swing.
You list a bunch of vids with gals having the ball hit right to them and
think that shows anything? :???:
Of course you just turn when the ball is coming to your Fh, but they all
used 2 hands on the racket and did most of the turn with hands in front
of their hands...even in these very poor examples of the topic.
Not the immediate split of the hands shown in tennis books for a unit turn.
not even a good try this time.

None of these are even print references, much less the books on classic
instruction over the last few decades that I referenced.

Click to expand...

Hands in front of the hands is not the same as both hands on racket. Don't change your claims now. The hands separated quite early.

Regarding moving to the ball with the hands on the racket - let me see, that is called, well. moving to the ball. As in, without moving to the ball, you cannot hit those balls.

Hands in front of the chest is not the same as both hands on racket. Don't change your claims now. The hands separated quite early.

Regarding moving to the ball with the hands on the racket - let me see, that is called, well. moving to the ball. As in, without moving to the ball, you cannot hit those balls.

Click to expand...

thanks, I corrected that typo.
I know it's tough for you not knowing the traditional instruction, so you can't
see how stalking the ball differs from that previous training and the need for
different terms.

Obviously Federer has the better forehand, but is Serena's easier to copy for mortals?

Click to expand...

I get your point here, but think maybe this is not an area where Serena is
easier to copy. There are reasons for keeping the hands in front of you till
the best time for timing.
Do what works for you though, and good thread.

Obviously Federer has the better forehand, but is Serena's easier to copy for mortals?

Click to expand...

Ultimately, it's all about timing, IMO. Federer tracks the ball with the racquet in front of him until the ball bounces (or close to it), and has a very compact backswing which he is able to execute very late (after bounce). Serena has a much larger loop - perhaps because she needs it to generate power, or maybe because it was the way she learned it from childhood - so she has to start the backswing much earlier for the timing to work out okay. Of the two, I would think the Serena type FH would be more error prone than Fed's as far as timing is concerned since it incorporates more variables. Bottom line is, there are many ways to hit the ball...